Sure. People are only put in jail for acting on it, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Our biggest mistake in policy is letting them out again.
The leftists slaughter their children in utero ... why would they care if somebody else wants to bugger the survivors?
How long before the GBLTs (Giblets) add a 'P' to their growing alphabet soup acronym identifier?
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Liberals protect their own.
De-pimped - here’s the entire article:
The New York Times knows no boundaries in its quest to be the most anti-American outlet in an already very anti-American national media.
This story sounds like something that came from The Onion, but sadly it is true. The New York Times has editorialized in favor of the Civil Rights of pedophiles yes pedophiles!
The Times wrings its dainty little hands and bemoans the nations tough anti-pedophile laws as unfair to pedophiles.
A mouth breathing mutant named Margo Kaplan, of course a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, who is now an assistant professor at Rutgers University is quoted as saying, One can live with pedophilia and not act on it
This greedy monsterwho wants to be the pedophiles lawyer wrote about the tragedy of the roughly 1 percent of people who are sexually attracted to children [yet] must hide their disorder from everyone they know or risk losing educational and job opportunities and face the prospect of harassment and even violence.
Oh the pain of it all! Imagine these monsters are actually kept from their prey by unfair laws this ambulance chaser wants to repeal!
Think about this dirt bag for a moment. She could use her skills and knowledge as a lawyer to protect victims and expand the horizons of children. But she chose to focus on being a gun bearer for sexual predators as they hunt our children! And whats more, although this woman is so sick that she doesnt recognize the difference between right and wrong, she is willing to err on the side of wrong because of her malignant view of the world.
This bottom feeder reminds me of my days as a community representative for my Congressman. I was assigned to visit schools and generate a letter campaign to toughen up pedophilia laws. I spoke to PTAs all over the district.
Because they met at night I was usually able to speak to parents without having to have my message filtered by Leftist, anti-American teachers. One night in a grade school this procedure failed because I knocked on the wrong door. There was a teachers conference going on. When they heard why I was in the school they came to listen to my message.
After my talk I opened the floor for questions. Most were what you would expect from anxious mothers, but one teacher said she would fight me because I was violating the rights of [pedophiles]. When I asked her why she would put the rights of convicted child molesters over the safety of the children in her custody she answered, Youre a Republican you should leave now. There was an audible gasp from the mothers who called out in unison, No YOU should leave; get out of our meeting!
Now the New York Times has joined child molesters because it makes them feel like better people. How nice! No wonder their readership drops by the month. They hate us and our children.
Source: http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/06/pedophilia-deserves-civil-rights-says-new-york-times-op-ed/
Civil rights defenders of pedophiles?!? What do you suppose would happen if these defenders of pedophiles had their children’s pictures published in a pedophile magazine. Do you think they would still be all liquored up on the idea of supporting this BS.
I am not going to read the article. Getting through the title was bad enough. I am really beginning to think that genes predispose people to being liberal or conservative. I was born conservative.
Normalizing pedophilia is next on the agenda of sexualizing children.
They do not “hate children.” Liberals are more apt to be the type of folks who love children inappropriately. Liberals are for legal gay marriage and paedophilia for the same reasons they are for abortion and against the death penalty. Liberals tend to be less than sure about their own characters and, having no ultimate determiner of rules, they are ambivalent about what they are and what they might be prone to. They are pro abortion because the males want access to females without ties and they cannot be killed by abortion. They are against the death penalty because they can imagine themselves committing some crime that might draw the death penalty. They are pro gay marriage and paedophilia because liberal men are not sure of their own proclivities, having no rule Book, and just might like to diddle that little girl or little boy sometime.
Wouldn’t the Times same “logic”(/sarcastic) apply to rapists? ..
And I must live with my urges to slap people like this woman silly.
We just covered a unit on child exploitation in the computer crime & legal issues class I teach. I include a discussion on the effects to LEOs who deal with the stuff daily as part of their job so these kids know what they will be getting into if they got that route. Mr Kitty, without ever having looked at my class schedule, knows when I am teaching this unit because it affects me so deeply to have to do so. Burnout rate for LEOs is 3 years and some people can’t handle it at all.
Pedophilia develops during childhood mostly due to the child being abused by another pedophile. That’s how it perpetuates. I really believe that if you could quarantine all pedophiles for the next 50 years, the mental illness of sexual attraction to children would die off.
And it is a mental illness. Maybe this ACLU babe should start defending the civil rights of those who hear voices telling them to kill. Or, sexual sadist serial killers. Or people who want to mutilate their bodies because they believe they are the wrong sex. Oops, too late for that one.
It doesnt help when the NAMBLA spokesman describes himself as a Libertarian in an interview with Spy magazine.
This 2008 Time article may explain more on that.
The fracas started with Mary J. Ruwart, the candidate with perhaps the deepest, purest libertarian roots (her rejection of government is so complete that some party moderates have begun warning of the anarchical dangers of Ruwarchy). In April, a rival called her out for her thoughts in a 1999 book called Short Answers to the Tough Questions. Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if its distasteful to us personally, Ruwart wrote. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.
Ruwarts is a classic libertarian take a defense of free will (even for child performers) and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind.
The partys executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography. Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.
That rigidity has long been libertarianisms greatest asset.
i know they sure hate unborn children.